Monday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@joiirnalist.com
WRC revisited:Will we stay or will we go?
University President Dave
Frohnmayer is in danger
of losing students’ and
administrators’ respect
with his flawed “are we in or are
we out?” approach to the Worker
Rights Consortium. Frankly, we
have had enough of the game-play
ing. Frohnmayer should step from
behind his smoke-and-mirrors pol
icy and make a decision.
Wednesday’s act — Frohnmayer
posted a vague statement on the
president’s Web page implying the
University was not joining the
WRC because of legal concerns be
fore bolting to the Netherlands for
a conference — was a breach of re
sponsibility. Frohnmayer had to
know that a confusing proclama
tion would only stir up passions
on both sides of the issue, and he
should have been the one answer
ing questions about its signifi
cance, not the University attorney.
(Especially considering the fact
that Frohnmayer is an attorney.)
From the outset, Frohnmayer
and other Johnson Hall adminis
trators have bad-mouthed the
WRC, which admittedly does not
yet have the structure necessary to
carry out its proposed plans. Yet,
instead of working to help bolster
the labor-rights group’s standing,
or at least offering more construc
tive criticism, the University has
done everything but that.
In July, after attending the WRC’s
first-ever board meeting in Wash
ington, D.C., Frohnmayer and Vice
President for Public Affairs and De
velopment Duncan McDonald re
turned with armloads of reasons
why the WRC was not a viable or
ganization. In mid-September,
Frohnmayer used his authority to
make a commitment to the Fair La
bor Association — a monitoring
group that also receives flak for its
structure — and again cast a shadow
on the University's commitment to
the WRC. And now, last week’s con
tinuation of the three-ring circus
had prognosticators around campus
and the Oregon community at large
debating what was happening.
One person, and one person
only, can clear up the mess. Frohn
mayer has proven that any deci
sion regarding the WRC is his
alone. He had the pen in his hand
in April to sign on with the organi
zation. He made the commitment
to the FLA. And he released the
statement that read, in part, “we
cannot pay dues or affiliation fees
to the WRC, and therefore can not,
at this time, become a member.”
Out of respect for all of the stu
dents who are impassioned about
this subject one way or another,
out of respect for the administra
tors who mumble and grumble in
private about the situation, and out
of respect for the thousands of
alumni across the state and the
country, Frohnmayer needs to clar
ify his comments.
Instead, the issue was muddied,
thanks to Frohnmayer using the
“flagpole” technique of gauging
public opinion: Run it up and see
who salutes with the most fervor.
Frohnmayer then left town and the
media jumped in with their own
conclusions. And what conclu
sions they had.
Local ABC affiliate KEZI de
scended upon campus with the at
titude of a vulture at a slaughter
house. The station’s report
Wednesday was overdramatic and
assumed that the University had
severed all ties with the WRC,
when, in fact, the president’s state
ments made no such claim. The
following evening’s newscast was
even more inflammatory, with the
anchor standing outside Johnson
Hall, stating that j/students were
going to protest, they would be set
ting up on the lawn, a la last
spring’s demonstrations.
Now, we aren’t eager to prompt
conspiracy theories, but let’s step
back and look at some facts.
Frohnmayer and the administra
tion have made it very clear that
they are not pleased with the WRC.
Nike President and CEO Phil Knight
certainly wasn’t happy with the de
cision, as evidenced by his with
drawal of $30 million and future do
nations to the University.
Frohnmayer needs public senti
ment to swing in his direction in or
der to make the final decision to
pull out of the WRC and squelch the
pro-WRC voices. The best way to
gain public sentiment is to get the
media to basically run a hatchet job
on the WRC and effectively kill any
promise of its survival at the Uni
versity, which is arguably what
KEZI did in its reporting.
Hmm, isn’t KEZI owned by
Chambers Communications? And
doesn’t Chambers Communications
have a pretty large financial stake in
the Autzen Stadium expansion and
the overall success of Oregon athlet
ics? Doesn’t the station have the
contract to televise Duck football
games and doesn’t it also manage
and run Duck Vision, the big screen
production at Autzen?
These questions are not meant to
imply any kind of dirty business
behind the scenes. We are just
pointing out that the longer Frohn
mayer keeps the community
guessing about what is really hap
pening, the more the entire situa
tion is open to interpretation.
Frohnmayer can take the first
step in putting a kibosh on all the
rumors and innuendo when he re
turns this week by answering a
simple question about the WRC:
Are we in or are we out?
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board. Responses
can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Simple building economics or an extravagant, wasteful move?
Lane County and Eugene taxpayers currently pay
more than S90 million a year to fund public safety
programs. Taxpayers are being asked, again, for
more than $150 million to fund two county ballot
measures (20-38 and 20-39) and a Eugene ballot measure
(20-36) for public safety. Last November, nearly 75 percent
of voters made their views clear by rejecting a $150 million
public safety tax increase.
Just last May, Eugene voters turned down another pro
posal to build a three-story police complex. Most voters
feel overtaxed. Property tax bills, now coming due, will un
derscore these concerns. But city bureaucrats have rushed
back to voters with vet another tax increase proposal.
The tens of millions of dollars requested for more gov
ernment buildings could be spent improving our decaying
schools. The proposed new police station is extravagant
and wasteful. Particularly troubling is the fact that $22 mil
lion of Measure 20-36’s $47.5 million is paid to lending in
stitutions for interest — not for actual building construc
tion,
A
City Hall could be upgraded for a fraction of the
$47.5 million that the city is requesting. One city
commissioned architectural study reported that City
Hall could be earthquake-braced for $500,000. A later
memo from VVBGS Architects estimated the cost of a
seismic upgrade at S2.5 million to $4.3 million,
much less than required by Measure 20-36.
Lane County voters want prevention, not more
jails. A county survey last year found that 67 per
cent of voters favor crime prevention, rather than
arrests and incarceration, as a more affordable
method for improving public safety. Only 17 per
cent favored increased emphasis on punishment.
Also contrary to a Lane County survey of voters, ef
fective drug rehabilitation programs are being under
funded or cut completely. Recently, the successful
drug rehab program, Passages, was completely cut
from the county budget. Instead, county officials ap
proved more money for the Forest Work Camp.
Enough is enough.
Crime rates are going down for both adults and
juveniles. Additional tax increases for police
and jails are not warranted. Proven methods, fo
cusing on crime prevention and social support
services, will be short-changed by Measures
20-36, 20-38 and 20-39.
Vote ”No!” on Measures 20-36, 20-38 and
20-39.
Carol Berg and Gary Kutcher are co-chairs of the
Enough is Enough Committee, a citizen group ad
dressing concerns about unfair taxes, public account
ability and local government.
hen any organization needs signifi
cantly more space, a new building is
usually the most economical choice.
Organizations as diverse as Symantec,
The Register-Guard and the First Baptist Church
have all come to that conclusion. Remodeling
, their existing buildings proved more expen
sive than new construction. No one should
be surprised that building a new police station
is the most economical choice for Eugene tax
payers.
I The police long ago outgrew the existing po
' lice station. It was built nearly 40 years ago,
when Eugene was just a little larger than Spring
field. As the city has grown, additional staff have
been stuffed into every available space. Today, nearly
twice as much space is needed for the existing police staff
to operate efficiently.
But there is an additional problem that makes it not
economical to remodel City Hall: It is a very weak build
ing that will not withstand even a moderate earthquake.
Neither City Hall nor any other building downtown
meets the stringent earthquake standards required for a
public safety building. As a result, remodeling any exist
ing building for police will be prohibitively expensive —
SI 9.6 to 21.3 million for City Hall. Expanding City Hall
to get the space necessary for police would cost even
more millions. The engineering firm WBGS conclud
ed that a major expansion of City Hall is so impracti
cal that it wasn't even worth an engineer's time to devel
op a cost estimate.
The average homeowner will pay about $45 per year for
the new police station, as well as to purchase land for a
new fire station. The police station will be built on a site
owned by the city on 8th Avenue between High and
Pearl. Long-term operational costs will be lower be
cause police will remain close to the courts,
where officers must frequently go.
, The cynics among us can always find a
dark cloud inside every silver lining. They
propose a wide range of theories about
why the city wants to build a new police
station. They're all wrong. The citizen com
mittee and council decisions that lead to
Measure 20-36 are based on simple building
economics and the need for police to be locat
ed near the other justice agencies they work
with every day. Measure 20-36 is essential for
Eugene's future. Please vote yes for 20-36.
John Brown is chair of the campaign in support of Ballot
Measure 20-36.